HPRB question

[Stoveman]

What's wrong with having two tables in front of the board, one for the applicant and his/her witnesses and the other for the trooper who was assigned to the case?

When each case is complete, both parties take their spot(s) back in the peanut gallery.


I will give props to Lt. Rossignol who does sit among the great unwashed and doesn't chime in when an individual trooper needs help testifying.

 

[montoya32]

To me, we accept they have guns, but the table arrangement gives them the appearance of parity, and they definitely use this arrangement to speak up, even when they are not specifically called on, as would be the protocol in any other judicial proceeding, or even quasi-judicial proceeding, like a city council meeting.

I know, but "we" are not the inexperienced parties. Most applicants coming to the hearings have never attended a hearing and are nervous to begin with.

 

[Gryphon]

Okay just got home after witnessing the baggage truck ram the 737, and way too much turbulence on the return flight, so I have not carefully read the above posts. In the meantime:

1. I suspect the Op has not posted all there is to know? But who knows? Let's assume he has.
2. If the MSP demanded additional information within 30 days, and then disapproved the application less than 10 days later, it sounds as though MSP's action was arbitrary and capricious and therefore subject to summary reversal by HPRB. Of course that contemplates that the Board would exercise its authority to do so. We haven't seen anything close to that happening yet.
3. The applicant may, but is under no obligation, to request an informal review of the MSP's arbitrary and capricious decision. If the MSP LD just made a mistake the applicant might wind up with a permit. Otherwise, if the MSP was just throwing its weight around to deny then an informal would be a waste of time. Why try to resolve a perceived error that was actually intended by the MSD LD in the first place?
4. The applicant apparently provided all the MSP decided was necessary to disapprove.
5. The applicant may provide any evidence it wants through the conclusion of a hearing before the Board.
6. The Board is empowered to act on this additional evidence the night of the hearing. More recently the Board has tabled hearings to give the MSP time to check and consider the supplemental evidence. Under most circs fair enough, but here the MSP disapproved before they even got the additional info they requested. Apparently they already decided it wasn't important to the disapproval. So why would the Board table a decision until the MSP has a cHance to review information it disingenuously requested and that it didn't even wait for prior to disapproval?
7. If the applicant thinks it is an honest mistake maybe an informal with MSP is warranted. If he feels he is being jerked around why not go straight to the Board and by doing so he may save a few weeks. Maybe he will get on the Boards clogged schedule this year? Maybe MSP will want to avoid an embarrassing hearing and just issue the permit?

Simply put, if the applicant thinks the MSP made a simple error and is being dealt with in good faith, then an informal with MSP may be advisable. Otherwise the sooner the applicant can get to the Board the better. It's anyone's guess. JMHO

 

[Rack&Roll]

What's wrong with having two tables in front of the board, one for the applicant and his/her witnesses and the other for the trooper who was assigned to the case?

When each case is complete, both parties take their spot(s) back in the peanut gallery.


I will give props to Lt. Rossignol who does sit among the great unwashed and doesn't chime in when an individual trooper needs help testifying.

Yes, this would return all parties to their proper stature in this proceeding.

 

[Nobody]

Has any one who had their permit issued or restrictions lifted got their new permit, and how long did it take?

Nobody

 

[mxrider]

Has any one who had their permit issued or restrictions lifted got their new permit, and how long did it take?

Nobody

Still waiting on my unrestricted permit. At the last HPRB meeting, the HPRB had not yet voted on my letter and is anticipating doing so at the next meeting on 10/4

 

[basscat]

Okay just got home after witnessing the baggage truck ram the 737, and way too much turbulence on the return flight, so I have not carefully read the above posts. In the meantime:

1. I suspect the Op has not posted all there is to know? But who knows? Let's assume he has.
2. If the MSP demanded additional information within 30 days, and then disapproved the application less than 10 days later, it sounds as though MSP's action was arbitrary and capricious and therefore subject to summary reversal by HPRB. Of course that contemplates that the Board would exercise its authority to do so. We haven't seen anything close to that happening yet.
3. The applicant may, but is under no obligation, to request an informal review of the MSP's arbitrary and capricious decision. If the MSP LD just made a mistake the applicant might wind up with a permit. Otherwise, if the MSP was just throwing its weight around to deny then an informal would be a waste of time. Why try to resolve a perceived error that was actually intended by the MSD LD in the first place?
4. The applicant apparently provided all the MSP decided was necessary to disapprove.
5. The applicant may provide any evidence it wants through the conclusion of a hearing before the Board.
6. The Board is empowered to act on this additional evidence the night of the hearing. More recently the Board has tabled hearings to give the MSP time to check and consider the supplemental evidence. Under most circs fair enough, but here the MSP disapproved before they even got the additional info they requested. Apparently they already decided it wasn't important to the disapproval. So why would the Board table a decision until the MSP has a cHance to review information it disingenuously requested and that it didn't even wait for prior to disapproval?
7. If the applicant thinks it is an honest mistake maybe an informal with MSP is warranted. If he feels he is being jerked around why not go straight to the Board and by doing so he may save a few weeks. Maybe he will get on the Boards clogged schedule this year? Maybe MSP will want to avoid an embarrassing hearing and just issue the permit?

Simply put, if the applicant thinks the MSP made a simple error and is being dealt with in good faith, then an informal with MSP may be advisable. Otherwise the sooner the applicant can get to the Board the better. It's anyone's guess. JMHO

You are right on most of your assumptions. I didn't disclose all the info yet. Can't right now. My additional documentation would have little effect on them changing their decision. All I can say is its going to be an interesting hearing. This one may be worth the price of admission.I've emailed Mr. Neverdon several days ago to get a confirmation on my hearing date but received no response. It's coming up soon.

 

[Nobody]

Still waiting on my unrestricted permit. At the last HPRB meeting, the HPRB had not yet voted on my letter and is anticipating doing so at the next meeting on 10/4

So they voted to give you an in restricted permit and take 2 months to vote on sending you a letter, what's next, voting to put a stamp on the envelope.


SMH

Nobody

 

[mxrider]

So they voted to give you an in restricted permit and take 2 months to vote on sending you a letter, what's next, voting to put a stamp on the envelope.


SMH

Nobody

There are, and I have stated this in the past, some extenuating circumstances surrounding my permit. With that said, the current rules that are set up to where the board must vote on the letter at a hearing is what I have an issue with. These votes occur during closed session and are then reported to the public in open session. If that is the case, why can't they vote in between meetings and get the letter out and then report their actions at the next hearing?

Holidays have also caused delays in this and messed up scheduled hearings.